O Paul Rudd! You aren’t getting any younger. These days it seems you are always on the verge of getting engaged or becoming an eternal bachelor. You’re at risk of being typecast as that guy who girls barely want to marry if only you didn’t have one outstanding flaw. I do not particularly enjoy watching you in an ‘everyman’ sort of role. Not just because you are far too adorable. But also because you’re consistently overly naive, you behave in unpredictable/irrational ways, and you invite the worst possible outcomes to all situations. It isn’t that I mind seeing you run into problems – but those problems feel predetermined, overly coincidental, well – lucky. Which is why your characters are annoying. Because they only perform within the self-serving logic of the movie. What would happen if your characters did not bend in illogical ways to meet the needs of the script? There would be no Dinner for Schmucks I suppose. There would be no Jay Roach. No great losses.

Though I will say you had two saving graces. Jermaine Clement as the over-sexed modern artist. And the taxidermy dioramas which are both moving and funny.

What am I forgetting? Zach Galifianakis can still do no wrong. Keep them coming. Oh Steve Carell. You are far superior at playing someone with a severe impairment (mentally handicapped, suicidal, virgin) than a plain Jane. Good job at not choosing to play the guy from Date Night again. We can all agree that didn’t work out for anyone . . . $5